Both of them were heavily influenced by DOS. Many of the same commands and
switches from DOS still work today, and pre-powershell scripting is DOS
batch files with lots of extensions added.
On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 6:52 PM Steve Nickolas <usotsuki(a)buric.co> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
Something this brings back to mind that I always
wonder about with
Microsoft and their OS choices: So they went with Windows NT for their
kernel, scraped the Windows environment off the top of DOS and dolloped
it on top. Has there been any explanation over the years why they also
decided to keep the MSDOS CLI interface? It's not like the NT kernel
couldn't handle simple stuff like a UNIX-y shell, tools like grep and
sed, etc. and Microsoft had code in Xenix they probably could've
considered using for that. Was it not wanting to have any licensing
questions by avoiding anything that smelled like Xenix at all? Or was
the consumer base at the time that invested in the MSDOS environment
that handing them a Bourne shell with some ubiquitous UNIX tools
would've just been unworkable? Feels like a lost opportunity, they
could've had their kernel and their desktop environment and still given
folks a more robust CLI. Instead stuff like UWIN, Cygwin, etc. had to
come along and fill the void. That was something I was hoping he'd talk
about when I clicked, but I didn't catch anything particular about the
CLI choice.
They actually inherited the CLI from OS/2, didn't they?
-uso.